В Вс, 13/10/2013 в 14:32 -0500, William Hubbs пишет:
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Are there any remaining concerns about doing this?
The only concern I have how this change affects *BSD or prefix? But yet
I failed to
El lun, 14-10-2013 a las 09:58 +0400, Peter Volkov escribió:
В Вс, 13/10/2013 в 14:13 -0700, Matt Turner пишет:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:32 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
On 14-10-2013 10:00:03 +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
В Вс, 13/10/2013 в 14:32 -0500, William Hubbs пишет:
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Are there any remaining concerns about doing this?
The only concern I have how
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:42 AM, yac y...@gentoo.org wrote:
Curiously I don't see any difference on my gentoo box, which I think I
should see but I'm not sure.
On mine the main difference seems to be bind mounts. In /etc/mtab the
bind mount device is the directory that is being bind-mounted.
On 14 October 2013 03:32, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
All,
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Are there any remaining concerns about doing this?
If not, it seems like it would be pretty easy to make baselayout
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't see a compelling case being made for why we should make this
change apart from all the other distros are doing it, and quite a
few reasons why we shouldn't. I'm open to being convinced, so please
tell me why this is
That is my impression as well.
With that said, the behavior is currently the same between our FreeBSD and
Linux variants. This change would break that.
On Oct 14, 2013, at 7:59 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 14 October 2013 03:32, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
All,
On Oct 14, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't see a compelling case being made for why we should make this
change apart from all the other distros are doing it, and quite a
few reasons why we
Dnia 2013-10-14, o godz. 09:26:43
Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
On Oct 14, 2013, at 9:19 AM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:59 AM, Ben de Groot yng...@gentoo.org wrote:
I don't see a compelling case being made for why we should make this
change
The Linux kernel also supports far more architectures than we do. That does not
mean that we must support them too.
With that said, how does changing things benefit/affect users, especially
non-systemd users?
On Oct 14, 2013, at 9:36 AM, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2013-10-14,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
The Linux kernel also supports far more architectures than we do. That does
not mean that we must support them too.
With that said, how does changing things benefit/affect users, especially
non-systemd users?
Better
On 10/14/2013 10:11 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
The Linux kernel also supports far more architectures than we do. That does
not mean that we must support them too.
With that said, how does changing things benefit/affect users,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:00:03AM +0400, Peter Volkov wrote:
В Вс, 13/10/2013 в 14:32 -0500, William Hubbs пишет:
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Are there any remaining concerns about doing this?
The only concern
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:46:38AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 10/14/2013 10:11 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
The Linux kernel also supports far more architectures than we do. That
does not mean that we must support them too.
On 10/14/2013 10:46 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
My main concern is that some of the configure flags being proposed could
make packages that worked on Gentoo FreeBSD stop working there. I am not
making changes, but I think that there should be some benefit and that
care should be taken not to break
On 10/14/2013 12:34 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:46:38AM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
On 10/14/2013 10:11 AM, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
The Linux kernel also supports far more architectures than we do. That
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 12:47:08PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
*snip*
Both of which are correct. That being said, I am not against making
changes, but given that this is on the list, I would like to someone to
provide a technical justification. Some key questions that justification
should
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Richard Yao r...@gentoo.org wrote:
1. What are mount namespaces? How do they integrate with the kernel?
2. What does systemd do with them? What does systemd's use of them
provide to users?
Saying to google per-process namespaces does not really answer that.
Rich Freeman wrote:
[...] and the point that many things
break in namespaces without the symlink, since /etc/mtab does not
reflect the state of the namespace. The latter in particular seems
like a pretty fundamental limitation - the very concept of /etc/mtab
is that mounts are global, and the
On 10/14/2013 01:24 PM, Rich Freeman wrote:
Systemd lets you configure daemons to have restricted access to the
filesystem as well - either read-only, or not at all - by directory.
I assume it just clones the mount namespace, and then sets up
bind-mounts to implement this before dropping root
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM, David Leverton
levert...@googlemail.com wrote:
If only someone would invent some sort of kernel feature that could make the
name /etc/mtab refer to different files in different processes
Well, the symlink seems like the simpler solution to be honest. I
Rich Freeman wrote:
However, FWIW, linux namespaces cannot be used to have only a single
file appear differently to different processes. Mount namespaces can
only operate at the directory level.
So to work around that limitation we insist that everyone change how
their systems are set up,
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:03 PM, David Leverton
levert...@googlemail.com wrote:
Rich Freeman wrote:
However, FWIW, linux namespaces cannot be used to have only a single
file appear differently to different processes. Mount namespaces can
only operate at the directory level.
So to work
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 4:03 PM, David Leverton
levert...@googlemail.com wrote:
So to work around that limitation we insist that everyone change how their
systems are set up, and still have to reintroduce mtab under a different
name (utab, hidden away under /run) because /proc/self/mounts
Mike Gilbert wrote:
This is a horrible example. /etc/resolv.conf is a configuration file
for code that lives entirely in userspace. Of course it makes no sense
to shove that into the kernel.
My point is that it's silly to have a hard-coded special case in the
kernel for mtab, especially if it
On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 15:50:36 -0400
Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 2:58 PM, David Leverton
levert...@googlemail.com wrote:
If only someone would invent some sort of kernel feature that could
make the name /etc/mtab refer to different files in different
Patrick McLean wrote:
This is not true. Bind mounts can be performed on a single file, and
bind mounts are part of mount namespaces. Granted the target file _must_
exist (it could be a dead symlink, or a symlink to /dev/null) before
performing the bind mount.
Well that's even better then. :-)
All,
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Are there any remaining concerns about doing this?
If not, it seems like it would be pretty easy to make baselayout create
this symlink in the stages (I'm willing to do this work), but
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:32 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
All,
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Are there any remaining concerns about doing this?
If not, it seems like it would be pretty easy to make
On 10/14/2013 03:32 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Are there any remaining concerns about doing this?
Apart from breaking umount -a and some other things?
None at all ;)
(The breakage is
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/14/2013 03:32 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Are there any remaining concerns about doing this?
Apart from
On 10/14/2013 07:29 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/14/2013 03:32 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Are there any
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
And the magic trick is to keep system mounts like /run out of
/etc/mtab (willful desynchronization) so that umount -a doesn't nuke
them by accident.
... why else would you keep such data in two non-synchronized
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/14/2013 07:29 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Patrick Lauer patr...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 10/14/2013 03:32 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:32 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
All,
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Are there any remaining concerns
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 07:21:47AM +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote:
On 10/14/2013 03:32 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
All,
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Are there any remaining concerns about doing this?
Apart from
AFAIK this known historical behavior that what you find in
`/etc/mtab` are things mounted by mount(8) (if that's what's printed by
running just mount).
Whereas /proc/mounts is the kernel view on what's mounted.
Curiously I don't see any difference on my gentoo box, which I think I
should see but
В Вс, 13/10/2013 в 14:13 -0700, Matt Turner пишет:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 12:32 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
from what I'm seeing, we should look into converting /etc/mtab to a
symlink to /proc/self/mounts [1].
Is the issue with NFS user mounts resolved? (Mentioned
38 matches
Mail list logo